Hi Richard,

On 8/23/2012 8:01 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:

But Pratt theory says that you can, and so do you for that matter.
I attribute it to a cosmic consciousness, but that is like saying nothing.

Yes, but it is a good idea to leave out the "cosmic consciousness" idea for the purpose of constructing explanations.

A game theory mechanism would be so much more useful and convincing
but with out eliminating the possibility of cosmic consciousness.

I agree but must point out that the cosmic version cannot be defined in terms of a single Boolean algebra. The closest thing is a superposition of infinitely many Boolean algebras (one for each possible consistent 1p), which is what we have in a logical description of a QM wave function. The trick is to jump from a 2-valued logic to a complex number valued logic and back. This just the measurement problem of QM in different language.

Gotta go now. Catch you later.

On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 7:56 AM, Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net <mailto:stephe...@charter.net>> wrote:

    Hi Richard,

        Yes, 3p is in the mind of the individual. We cannot turn a 3p
    into a 1p and maintain consistency. Think of how a cubist painting
    (which superposes different 1p) looks...

    On 8/23/2012 7:48 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:

    Could you not say that 3p is in the mind but only 1p is physical?
    I claim that whatever turns 3p into 1p is divine, by definition.

    On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 7:43 AM, Stephen P. King
    <stephe...@charter.net <mailto:stephe...@charter.net>> wrote:

        Hi Richard,

            The 1p is the subjective view of one observer. It is not
        inconsistent with GR proper. The problem happens when we
        abstract to a 3p. I claim that there is no 3p except as an
        abstraction, it isn't objectively real.

        On 8/23/2012 7:40 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
        Please tell me how 1p is inconsistent with GR.
        I thought it was inconsistent with QM.

        On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 7:35 AM, Stephen P. King
        <stephe...@charter.net <mailto:stephe...@charter.net>> wrote:

            Hi Richard,

                Yes, the tough but fun part is understanding the
            continuous version of this for multiple 1p points of
            view so that we get something consistent with GR.

            On 8/23/2012 7:32 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:

            Agreed. All possible states are present in the mind,
            but IMO only one state gets to be physical at any one time,
            exactly what Pratt seems to be saying.
            That's why I called it an axiom or assumption.

            On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 7:25 AM, Stephen P. King
            <stephe...@charter.net <mailto:stephe...@charter.net>>

                Hi Richard,

                    I was just writing up a brief sketch... I too
                am interested in a selection rule that yields one
                state at a time. What I found is that this is
                possible using an itterated tournament where the
                "winners" are the selected states. We don't
                eliminate the multiverse per se as serves as the
                collection or pool or menu of prior possible states
                that are selected from. What is interesting about
                Pratt's idea is that in the case of the finite and
                forgetful residuation the menu itself is not
                constant, it gets selected as well.

                On 8/23/2012 6:45 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
                Thanks for telling me what bisimulation means.
                I was interested in that choosing only one state
                at a time eliminates the multiverse.

                On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 11:38 PM, Stephen P. King
                <mailto:stephe...@charter.net>> wrote:

                    On 8/22/2012 4:04 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
                    Now this is interesting: "Points have
                    necessary existence, all being present
                    simultaneously in the physical object A.
                    15.States are possible, making a Chu space a
                    kind of a Kripke structure [Gup93]:
                    only *one state at a time* may be chosen from
                    the menu X of alternatives.

                    Seems that divine intervention may be an
                    assumption. I wonder who does the choosing.
                    May I suggest Godellian consciousness?

                    Dear Richard,

                      No need for divine intervention! I am not
                    sure what "Godellian consciousness" is. Let me
                    comment a bit more on this part of Pratt's
                    idea. The choice mechanism that I have worked
                    out uses a tournament styled system. It
                    basically asks the question: what is the most
                    consistent Boolean solution for the set of
                    observers involved? It seems to follow the
                    general outlines of pricing theory and auction
                    theory in economics and has hints of Nash
                    equilibria. This makes sense since it would be
                    modeled by game theory. My conjecture is that
                    quantum entanglement allows for the
                    connections (defined as bisimulations) between
                    monads to exploit EPR effects to maximize the
                    efficiency of the computations such that
                    classical signaling is not needed (which gets
                    around the "no windows" rule). This latter
                    idea is still very much unbaked.




"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed."
~ Francis Bacon

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to